The initial benchmark you made that led to the claims of 100,000 tps was suspect at best.
Now, after your testing over the weekend where the test net died at a mere 1% of that claim (as I expected), and has resulted in Dan posting a statement detailing that the platform will be limited to just 100 tps, that claim of 100,000 tps is now completely irrelevant.
A lot of your "hype" about BTS2.0 has been based around this 100,000 tps, but its now clear the claim can not be achieved, or anywhere close.
It should be redacted until you have solved some of the issues with networking, and performed open load testing where those claims are at least viable. Continuing to "sell" the platform from this point and stating that claim is immoral IMO.
There is no shame in stating you over estimated the capabilities, in fact it deserves respect if anything.
Perhaps you published this
non-sequitur while I was posting the above?
Everything is as it has always been claimed at bitshares.org since the
original announcement.
We have the flux capacitor and are building a Delorian around it.
We will continue to publish the two benchmarks (BitShares vs. Graphene) for all to track progress. Meanwhile, the BitShareholders will vote for how much throughput they want to pay for in the active network which can grow to keep ahead of demand for the foreseeable future.
Meanwhile, Graphene has other application chains beyond BitShares that will also scale at different rates.